Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cinco.
For claim 6, Cinco (2013/0153447) discloses a bidirectional sliding armrest comprising:
an armrest cover (26) configured to be locatable at an upper portion of a console body provided in a vehicle body so as to be spaced apart therefrom;
a power transmission unit (94) disposed at a lower portion of the armrest cover and configured to move to correspond to operation of the armrest cover;
a console fixing unit (38) configured to be locatable on the console body and configured to include a plurality of fixing recesses (52,54,56);
a locking unit (46) configured to be fixable on a lower surface of the armrest cover, fixed to the plurality of fixing recesses, and configured to fix a lengthwise position of the armrest cover; and
a spring section (44), one end of which is fixed to the console fixing unit, and the other end of which is fixed to the locking unit,
wherein the spring section (44) is configured to apply an elastic restoring force that biases the armrest cover rearward in a lengthwise direction of the vehicle ([0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3043957 (FR‘957) in view of DE 102011118152 (DE ‘152).
For claim 1, FR 957 discloses a bidirectional sliding armrest (6) comprising:
an armrest cover (20) configured to be locatable at an upper portion of a console body (FIG.1) provided in a vehicle body so as to be spaced apart therefrom;
a power transmission unit (8) disposed at a lower portion of the armrest cover and configured to move to correspond to operation of the armrest cover;
a console fixing unit (J-shaped structure, FIG.2) configured to be locatable on the console body (FIG.3) and configured to include a plurality of fixing recesses (28);
a locking unit (24) configured to be fixable on a lower surface of the armrest cover, fixed to the plurality of fixing recesses (28), and configured to fix a lengthwise position of the armrest cover; and
a link stopper (tip of 24) at which a section is formed and opposite ends of which are inserted into the fixing recesses.
PNG
media_image2.png
550
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FR 957 lacks only that the section of the link stopper being trapezoidal in shape, a feature taught by DE 102011118152 (DE 152) as seen with sections (5) which are trapezoidal in cross section in (FIGS.2-3).
PNG
media_image3.png
389
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have substituted a trapezoidal shaped as taught by DE 152 for the cylindrical shape of FR 957 as an obvious expedient and alternate to aid by wedging the section into the recess for ease in fit and securement thereof.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the selection of the particular shape of the section based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination because it performs the same function and applicant has provided no support that the particular shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that different shaped would perform equally well. Changing the shape would not appear to produce an unexpected result.
The choice to modify is deemed to have been an obvious design choice based on the size and shape of the recess to which the device engages and the amount or degree of overlap/coverage of the recess.
For claim 2, the power transmission unit (8) includes: a knob (the portion of 8 which is accessible as seen in FIG.1), one end of which is fastened to one end of the armrest cover; and a link rod (the portion of 8 not accessible in FIG.1) connected to the other end of the knob, wherein the link rod is configured to move in a lengthwise direction by rotation of one end of the knob as the knob is pulled upward.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 957, as modified, and further in view of DE 824 (DE 202008016824).
For claim 5, FR 957, as modified above, discloses the locking unit further includes a slide damper (12) connected to the armrest cover, and
the console fixing unit (J-shaped structure) includes a slide section (14) configured to be engaged with the slide damper (12) in a lengthwise direction, so that the armrest cover is configured to be able to move to opposite sides of the console body in a lengthwise direction.
FR 957, as modified, fails to include the slide section being a gear section as recited, known from at least DE 824 as seen with the rack and pinion type configuration of FIG.3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have substituted a gear section as taught by DE 824 in place of the slide section of FR 957, as modified, as an obvious expedient and alternate to further assist the translation of the armrest. Modification of this type is deemed obvious based on its suitability for its intended use because it performs the same function as the slide section and applicant has provided no support that the gear section solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. This type of change would not appear to produce an unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-2, 5, and 7 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) and rejections set forth above.
Claims 3-4 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter for the claims in this application include the specific link stopper bracket (520), mechanically fastened to the link rod of the power transmission unit (300), including inner sides (FIGS.6a,b) corresponding to a trapezoidal section, wherein the link stopper bracket (520) is formed to enclose sides of the link stopper (510) in combination with the other elements recited, which is not found in the prior are of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2012-25075 discloses a link stopper (30,50, FIG.6) including inner sides (50) that are triangular in shape that correspond with cylindrical section (56,56).
PNG
media_image4.png
523
531
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B